Would Romney be Worse for Medical Marijuana Than Obama? Ctd

Andrew Sullivan responds to my statement that, regarding medical marijuana, "I honestly doubt Romney could be any worse than [Obama] if he tried."

I don't. The man doesn't even drink coffee. His impulse when seeing a man with muscular dystrophy in desperate need of medical marijuana was to listen, ignore and then walk away. Obama deserves criticism on medical marijuana - but the notion that there would be no difference between his DEA and Romney's strikes me as ... well I can't help remembering how, in 2000, I thought Gore would be no different than Bush.

I do agree that Obama is almost certainly a lot less hostile to the issue than Romney is on a personal level. I could have been clearer that my point wasn't so much to suggest that they would definitely be equally bad on the issue, but rather that it's incoherent to defend Obama's actions based on the premise that Romney would obviously be worse. I've been told more than once that I should mute my criticism of Obama and instead encourage the medical marijuana community to support him for fear of Romney, and I think that's rather ridiculous.

What worries me is that Obama seems to be getting a pass on some things that I suspect would invite more vigorous outrage if carried out by Romney. When the President claimed that the raids were focused on groups that violated their own state laws, even Andrew Sullivan, an outspoken critic of the raids, agreed it was a fair point. He later went on to say, "I also wish some states had exercized more discretion and care in allowing for medical marijuana."

I understand Andrew's concern, but let's not forget what happened when states did exercise discretion and care in attempting to regulate medical marijuana activity. Obama's DOJ threatened to arrest not only the providers, but also the state officials monitoring them to ensure compliance with state law. Federal posturing stalled efforts to regulate dispensaries in Washington and Rhode Island, and resulted in the elimination of a strict plant-tagging program in California that was becoming a model for effective regulation.

What we've got now is the functional equivalent of chasing off the code inspectors and then claiming that our restaurants are dirty. Sure, there's been some excessive profiteering and other abuses in the medical marijuana industry, but to a large extent, those problems are a result of federal interference and not an excuse for it.

Any discussion of Obama's approach to medical marijuana is incomplete if it doesn't address the far-reaching implications of these efforts to thwart regulation at the state level. This is true not only because these events show how this administration has posed an existential threat to medical marijuana in states that are trying to launch programs, but also because they vividly illustrate the inaccuracy of Obama's recent suggestion that his DOJ is merely upholding local laws.

The fact that he's comfortable misrepresenting events that have unfolded before our eyes means that not enough pressure is being applied from Obama's pro-medical marijuana base, and I'm worried that fear of Romney is part of the reason why.

Update: To be clear, none of this is to suggest that Andrew Sullivan hasn't done enough to criticize Obama on this issue. He's done an awesome job of that.

(This article was published by StoptheDrugWar.org's lobbying arm, the Drug Reform Coordination Network, which also shares the cost of maintaining this web site. DRCNet Foundation takes no positions on candidates for public office, in compliance with section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and does not pay for reporting that could be interpreted or misinterpreted as doing so.)

Gary Johnson is not going to win the presidency, he's running under the LP banner which means he'll get at most 10% of the vote (if he's lucky enough to get that much). But even more, he'd only address cannabis and leave the rest of the drug war intact.

Ron Paul, otoh, would dismantle the entire drug war at the federal level. Additionally, Ron Paul has an equal chance of gaining the GOP nomination as Romney. EVERY voter who wants an end to the drug war needs to be supporting Ron Paul (to each person's greatest ability), NO OTHER CANDIDATE is acceptable because no other candidate will end the drug war, not even Gary Johnson.

It is a difficult choice but that is exactly what the Feds want. If enough MJ smokers go for Johnson then Obama will win or if they can split us between Romney and Obama then Obama will probably win. I believe Obama had his chance and started out sticking by his word until he brought on Mitchell Lierheart then he became the worst prohibitionist ever. On the other hand if Romney would leave it alone and leave it up to the states the people will make this happen, so I must vote for Romney and take my chances.

Romney has no better chance at the GOP nomination than Ron Paul, and as Ron Paul would make the government obey the Constitution and end the federal war on drugs, he is by far the better choice. Don't believe the MSM when they try to tell you Ron Paul has dropped out of the race, he has not, he has just decided to put his scarce funds to better use than campaign ads in primary States. His delegate count is already enough to cause a brokered convention and at a brokered convention he has a 50/50 chance at getting the nomination. If we drug war reformers ALL get behind him, his chances of gaining the nomination increase exponentially.

Failing to understand political capital

I’m one who tends to be pretty open about the fact that different reform groups have different agendas and viewpoints and that’s OK. I rarely chastise a group or leader merely because I differ with their views or strategy.

I am, however, quite surprised and displeased with the quotes from Allen St. Pierre from NORML in this article. If accurate, they don’t serve St. Pierre or NORML (or any of us) very well.

Allen St. Pierre, executive director for NORML, which seeks to reform marijuana laws, says the president might have political as well as legal motivations for reversing his initial position on medical marijuana. St. Pierre argues that current laws prohibit the Obama administration from turning a blind eye to state’s medical marijuana legalization.

“In essence, the administration is sort of hamstrung,” St. Pierre says.

Most definitely not true. The original Holder memo was correct. The government does have significant discretion in how it uses its funds to enforce laws. And it could still enforce current laws without going out of its way to intimidate medical marijuana operations in the states.

The Obama administration has not been just doing what’s necessary. It’s been taking an active role in escalating the crackdown.

St. Pierre says letting states regulate marijuana as they please would burn up a lot of the president’s political capital, adding that Obama has to take action or he risks earning a reputation in 2012 election as soft on drugs.

I don’t think Obama has a chance in hell of being perceived as soft on anything. This is the guy who claims the power to assassinate American citizens with no judicial review. Even Bush wouldn’t go that far.

There may be political capital involved in the medical marijuana decisions, but it’s the definition of “capital” that means “cash,” not the implied “capital” meaning political will and votes.

It appears, unfortunately, that Allen is speaking as a supporter of candidate Obama and/or the Democratic Party, rather than in his role as executive director of NORML.

"I've been told more than once that I should mute my criticism of Obama and instead encourage the medical marijuana community to support him for fear of Romney, and I think that's rather ridiculous."

Who the hell is in charge of the medical marijuana community? And since when should the medical marijuana community be on Democratic autopilot when this party has been just as bad as the Republicans on marijuana? When are you mainstream people, fear of being labeled "conspiracy theorists," going to wake the f up? There is no difference between Obama and Romney, you knuckleheads! These people are funded by the same people, groomed by the same elite, and given center stage by an unfair and unbalanced media who keeps everybody outside who is not part of the system.

Obama is a hell of a lot smarter and craftier than Romney and has a head start; so I think that Obama would be worse on medical marijuana. Whereas Romney, at least over the first two years, will be trying to figure out what is going on. Obama would be a harsher drug warrior because he has had time to put things in place; Romney is 3 to 4 years away from being any worse than Obama.

Prohibition of ANY substance violates every individual's unalienable right to self-ownership and self-determination. All criminal and civil penalties for any part of the drug trade from cultivation/manufacture to transport/sale to possession/use MUST be removed in order for the government to be Constitutionally legitimate on this issue. The ONLY reason to pursue an end to the drug war is LIBERTY, yours, mine, everyone's. And the only way to get to that point in the next year is to get Ron Paul elected president, nothing and no one else will do it.

Three lashes of the whip, or 5? Four kicks to the kidneys, or seven? Sodomized with a PR-24 or an old fashioned nightstick? That is, in essence, the only political and social choice provided to cannabists. Who've caught Hell, no matter who's in power, for the past 40+ years.

Nixon: "Law n' order" upside the head, dirty hippie!

Ford: Ditto, quietly

Carter: “Penalties against possession of a drug should not be more damaging to an individual than the use of the drug itself; and where they are, they should be changed. Nowhere is this more clear than in the laws against possession of marijuana in private for personal use... Therefore, I support legislation amending Federal law to eliminate all Federal criminal penalties for the possession of up to one ounce [28g] of marijuana.”...Didja believe me? Suckuhs!

Bush 1 (Reagan never counted at all): Nixon, squared.

Clinton: I didn't inhale, so eff you! I'll arrest even more of your asses! And vote for me again! And for a final insult as I waltz out the door, I'll say that I thought it had been decrimmed long ago!"

Bush Too (not a typo, he was a replacement 'procreative member' used by his father to continue the rape) Duuuuuhhhhh? Uhhhhh, whuht Klintin sayed...

And finally, Mr. "Let science decide policy"?

We catch Hell no matter who resides at the White House or Congress. Let's hope what's happened in in Oregon makes it clear that we're the only ones who can save us...

Romney didn't pursue a Mormon cronyistic agenda as governor of Massachusetts, so I doubt he will do that as President especially when he needs the Christian folks in the Bible Belt to vote for him. Furthermore, you can't rely on any of the liberal Supreme Court Justices to defend states rights on marjuana policy as seen in Angel Raich vs. Gonzales. The only justices (O'Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas) that supported Angel Raich's case were all Republican appointees. Republicans are far more likely to support state rights with all the rage over Obamacare and that's who Romney will be pushed to appoint to the Supreme Court.

All i hear on civl liberties issues is federal power vs states rights. this is a non starter since individual rights are the basis of our founding and constitution, with both the feds and states being limited in what they can do by enumerated powers, while individual rights go on, without need of enumeration, up to the point where exercising that rights infringes upon the actual rights of another. Now it seems that the only argument is between which government controls your life and stifles your inborn liberty, the federal or state one. Nothing on drug policy or any other invasion into our private lives and inherent rights will really be reformed until Americans once again accept that individual liberty is the final arbiter, against which all other concerns must be measured, and any balance struck must be weighted towards liberty.

All i hear on civl liberties issues is federal power vs states rights. this is a non starter since individual rights are the basis of our founding and constitution, with both the feds and states being limited in what they can do by enumerated powers, while individual rights go on, without need of enumeration, up to the point where exercising that rights infringes upon the actual rights of another. Now it seems that the only argument is between which government controls your life and stifles your inborn liberty, the federal or state one. Nothing on drug policy or any other invasion into our private lives and inherent rights will really be reformed until Americans once again accept that individual liberty is the final arbiter, against which all other concerns must be measured, and any balance struck must be weighted towards liberty.

Obama has proven to be a liar and a hypocrite.Is it worse to crack down with a vengeance while claiming to be sympathetic or to act as hostile as you say you will?How much worse can it get?Romney,as a Republican,would have more difficulty interfering in States rights,yes?With Obama we now know what to expect and it's the exact opposite of whatever he says.